Introduction
A known problem throughout the world that has been around for millenniums, is drugs. Among these drugs is one that has been in use by humans since its founding, before most of the other drugs of today. This drug is called Tobacco. It seems to be one of the most dangerous drugs socially acceptable that is very harmful to both people and animals alike. One of the main ways of using this drug is smoking. Although there are many regulations in place within America, people are starting to try and place a ban on this widely accepted use. However, a ban would be dangerous just as Thomas A. Lambert states in his article of ‘The Case Against Smoking Bans’. Lambert states the reasoning behind how every case made for banning Smoking has flaws …show more content…
As stated in Lambert 's’ article, “ban advocates argue that non-smoking patrons and employees of establishments that allow smoking are forced to bear costs over which they have no control,”(p. 1) ie. smoke damage and second-hand smoke. He furthers his argument by stating “that the building owner, who is in a position to control the amount of smoking (if any) that is permitted in the building, has an incentive to permit the “right” amount of smoking... [which] may be zero...as much as patrons desire...or something in-between” (p. 2). On this issue, I do fully agree with Lambert’s views. Reason being is that Lambert brings up particularly valid points about the fight concerning smoking in public places. However, since smoking bans usually concern public spaces such as restaurants and stores, it has been found “that although smoking bans do not reduce smoking within the overall population, they increase the demand for smoking cessation services among heavy smokers and reduce consumption among individuals who frequently visit bars and restaurants.”(Jones, Laporte, Rice, & Zucchelli, 2013, p. 2). This would mean that smoking bans are merely taking the problem out of sight just as the saying goes ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ With this, it simply means that the concerns for smoking will in fact not be solved by smoking bans. A different example is how “heavy smokers and higher income smokers are most affected by workplace bans and that, in the presence of a ban, smokers have an incentive to smoke their reduced number of cigarettes more intensively.”(Jones, Laporte, Rice, & Zucchelli, 2013, p. 2). Which in turns means that although smokers are not smoking in public spaces, only certain groups of people are affected by the bans. Plus smokers will fill the need to smoke more or smoke their supply faster than they normally would in order to get their fix for work
A known problem throughout the world that has been around for millenniums, is drugs. Among these drugs is one that has been in use by humans since its founding, before most of the other drugs of today. This drug is called Tobacco. It seems to be one of the most dangerous drugs socially acceptable that is very harmful to both people and animals alike. One of the main ways of using this drug is smoking. Although there are many regulations in place within America, people are starting to try and place a ban on this widely accepted use. However, a ban would be dangerous just as Thomas A. Lambert states in his article of ‘The Case Against Smoking Bans’. Lambert states the reasoning behind how every case made for banning Smoking has flaws …show more content…
As stated in Lambert 's’ article, “ban advocates argue that non-smoking patrons and employees of establishments that allow smoking are forced to bear costs over which they have no control,”(p. 1) ie. smoke damage and second-hand smoke. He furthers his argument by stating “that the building owner, who is in a position to control the amount of smoking (if any) that is permitted in the building, has an incentive to permit the “right” amount of smoking... [which] may be zero...as much as patrons desire...or something in-between” (p. 2). On this issue, I do fully agree with Lambert’s views. Reason being is that Lambert brings up particularly valid points about the fight concerning smoking in public places. However, since smoking bans usually concern public spaces such as restaurants and stores, it has been found “that although smoking bans do not reduce smoking within the overall population, they increase the demand for smoking cessation services among heavy smokers and reduce consumption among individuals who frequently visit bars and restaurants.”(Jones, Laporte, Rice, & Zucchelli, 2013, p. 2). This would mean that smoking bans are merely taking the problem out of sight just as the saying goes ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ With this, it simply means that the concerns for smoking will in fact not be solved by smoking bans. A different example is how “heavy smokers and higher income smokers are most affected by workplace bans and that, in the presence of a ban, smokers have an incentive to smoke their reduced number of cigarettes more intensively.”(Jones, Laporte, Rice, & Zucchelli, 2013, p. 2). Which in turns means that although smokers are not smoking in public spaces, only certain groups of people are affected by the bans. Plus smokers will fill the need to smoke more or smoke their supply faster than they normally would in order to get their fix for work